Paris Cinema

841 Boylston Street,

Boston,
MA02215

The Paris was not a Sack theatre when it enjoyed its heyday in the late 60s and early 70s. It was four-walled by Joseph E. Levine of Embassy Pictures, which became Avco-Embassy during the lease, to show “The Graduate,” “The Producers” and “The Lion in Winter” because Levine was still having a blood feud with Ben Sack over Sack’s 1965 exhibition of Levine’s release, “Darling,” and no way was Joe gonna let Ben make any money off him. The feud was finally settled when Sack booked “The Night Porter” from Joe in 1974. I know this because I handled the PR for them, God forgive me.

Member the “star trek” wall at the Paris? It was a thick, enlarged mesh of bony ovals. Not jagged but molded and smooth. I don’t what art movement to align it with (suburban wet bar rococo?) but it definitely came from the late 60’s/early 70’s. It was behind the snack counter. I’d love a photo!!!

I also viewed “The Graduate” in 67' it was a Sack theatre with large picture windows showing the lobby to those on the street, very nice blue carpeting and of course the ‘new age’ formica candy counter, I’m partial to glass block, all in all I liked the theatre as with any single screen house!

The Charles, The 57 and The Cheri were the auditoriums that I remember having 70 mm capacity. Charles was The Deer Hunter & The Rose. 57 was The Doors and The Exorcist. Cheri was Edward Scissorhands. Paris I remember for being the cinema for Woody Allen movies and the Last Temtation of Christ. The latter film had protesters that were saying the our father and hail mary prayers in a protest circle. One person told me I was going to the place below because I was vewing the film

Dennis, it is true that the Paris had no balcony but it did have a rear section that was stadium seating, if I recall correctly. I do not believe the Paris had 70mm capability, though I could be corrected on that. 35mm has long been the standard for theatrical exhibition from its commercial use in the early 20th Century up until now. The phrase “35mm formats of today” doesn’t make sense.

I pleasantly remember seeing “The Graduate” at the Paris sometime in late 1967 or early 1968. The audience loved the film. I got the impression that the height of the auditorium was relatively low and I believe there was no balcony. Yet, the screen was a good size width-wise and the sound system seemed decent. It was a perfect location in the Back Bay, with huge pedestrian traffic going by it all day and night. Having the Prudential Center across the street was an asset. If a cinema like that cannot succeed in today’s market, it tells you that either the quality of the films has gone down or that Hollywood is catering more to a youth audience — and I firmly believe that both instances are true. I am now 55 years old, and I remember the days when you could see beautifully photographed movies in 70mm on big screens. The smaller cinemas and 35mm formats of today are big steps down in quality.

Assuming King’s dates are mostly correct, one thing I found striking was that new theatre construction in central Boston suddenly stopped with the Paramount in 1932, and didn’t get going again until the mid-1960s with the Paris, Charles, and Cheri.

During that three-decade interval, the only new movie theatres that opened were a few newsreel houses carved out of existing buildings between 1936 and 1940 (South Station, Telepix, the second Old South).

The first Kenmore may have been an exception, but I don’t know much about it and King mentions it only briefly; in any event, it was on the far fringe of the city center.

The appendix of King’s book states that the Paris was “demolished about 2000.” The theater was closed in early 1993 and was quickly replaced by a Walgreens.

I would add a caveat to Ron’s above comment. The Paris was the last newly built theater that opened as a single screen and wasn’t subsequently subdivided OR had additional screens added. The large auditorium at the Charles, which opened in either 1966 or 1967 according to King (the text and the appendix provide different opening dates) was never subdivided; the second and third Charles screens were separate from the large auditorium.

King calls it “Boston’s last new single-screen motion picture theatre”, but I think he means to say that it was the last newly-built theatre that opened as a single screen and was never subsequently subdivided.

Snuff is a prime example of the theatre owners saying “pickets sell tickets.” A horrible horror film that was considered unreleasable until someone tacked on a fake ending making it look like a snuff type film. The producers of it arranged for their own pickets/protests in NYC to generate controversy & publicity. And a lot of the public bought it. Wonder if the Boston protesters were real?

Speaking of the Saxon – that right there is an example of a Sack owned house that ran porn. There is a great picture of the Saxon in the “Citi-scapes of Boston” photo book by the guys who do the ‘then and now’ photos in the Globe magazine. Advertised on the marquee: “Terri Hall in ‘Gums’ rated XXX”.

I’m not sure who owned it during its softcore days. May have been pre-Sack.

Also to answer WHY theatres close without advance word is because the company does not want any bad publicity and any theatre closing always brings out folks who loved the house. Just look at the few good comments on Copley Place after it closed. If the property is being sold the fans may try to block the theatre being torn down. Perhaps even try to get it landmark status. The last thing a movie company wants is a landmark because ANY changes in the place have to be approved by a commission.
Sack resisted having the Saxon given landmark status for years because they wanted to sell it, not restore it.